alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Personal Communication with Susan McGregor, Dragon Mosquito August 2009

What are the costs to perform problem identification for a town? Or are they site

specific?

The process is definitely tailored town by town. For instance a town that is 10 square

miles has different problems than a larger town; each town has a variety of needs. But,

trapping adults, to assess for adulticiding and disease risk probably costs somewhere

between $4,000 - $8,000 per summer per town or $1,000 - $2,000 per month per town.

That’s just for adult surveillance.

For larval surveillance the costs vary by the size of the town. (Larval surveillance is

performed to assess need for larviciding and then afterwards to perform mortality

checks.)

What are the budgets for mosquito control like?

They vary widely. The budgets can be as low as $15,000 for a tiny town or as high as

$105,000 for full complement of larvicide surveillance in catch basins, road spraying etc.

I’d say that the average budget is about $40,000. Most towns simply don’t do anything.

Others do simple source reduction, just stream clearing, no dredging. Others work with

county or states doing marsh restoration.
Case No. 13,280.

#### STAINTHORP et al. v. HUMISTON.

[2 Fish. Pat. Cas. 311.] 1

Circuit Court, N. D. New York.

Oct., 1862.

Patents — Injunction—Account.

Although the defendant’s machine may infringe, yet if it contain other valuable improvements not covered by plaintiffs’ patent, an order for account and security may be substituted for an injunction.

[Cited in Hoe v. Boston Daily Advertiser Corp., 14 Fed. 910; Campbell Printing-Press & Manuf’g Co. v. Manhattan Ry. Co., 49 Fed. 933.]

[This was a bill in equity by John Stain-thorp and Stephen Seguine against Willis Humiston.] Motion for a provisional injunction to restrain the defendant from infringing letters patent [No. 12,492] granted to John Stainthorp, March 6, 1855, for an “improvement in machines for making candles.” The motion was based upon prior adjudications, two of which are reported. Stainthorp v. Elkinton [Case No. 13,278], and Stainthorp v. Humiston [Id. 13,279].

M. B. Andrus and George Gifford, for complainants.

M. P. Norton, for defendant.

HAUL, District Judge.

I still retain the opinion (expressed in Stainthorp v. Humiston [Case No. 13,279] decided in the Southern district of New York, March, 1859), that the Humiston machine is an infringement of the first claim m" Stainthorp’s patent, but, as the defendant’s machines contain other valuable improvements which are not patented to Stainthorp, an injunction might operate to the prejudice of the actual rights of the defendant without being as useful to the complainants as an account of profits, and security for their payment to the complainants, under the final decree in this case.

There are now also presented by the defendant, several affidavits of mechanical experts tending to show that the Humiston machine is not an infringement of the complainants’ rights; and, although these affidavits have not shaken my faith in the correctness of my former decision, they afford an additional reason for making an order for an account and security, rather than an order for an injunction.

If a proper bond shall be given, according to the order to be entered on this motion, the injunction will not issue. If such bond be not given within fifteen days after service of a copy of the order, an injunction will go.

[For other cases involving this patent see Cases Nos. 13,278, 13,281, and 13,872.]
Exhibit 32.1

SUNLINK HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of SunLink Health Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Robert M. Thornton, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and

(2) To the best of my knowledge information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.



By:

/s/ Robert M. Thornton, Jr.Robert M. Thornton, Jr. Chief Executive
Officer


May 15, 2007



36
# C_2007170EN.01001503.xml

| 21.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 170/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 170/15

---

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Högsta domstolen (Sweden) lodged on 29 May 2007 — Gävle Kraftvärme AB v Länsstyrelsen i Gävleborgs län

(Case C-251/07)

(2007/C 170/28)

Language of the case: Swedish

Referring court

Högsta domstolen

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Gävle Kraftvärme AB

Applicant:

Defendant: Länsstyrelsen i Gävleborgs län

Defendant:

Questions referred

| 1. | Where a combined power and heating plant consists of a number of units (furnaces), on interpretation of Directive 2000/76/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council on the incineration of waste, is each unit to be assessed as a separate plant or is the assessment to cover the combined power and heating plant as a whole? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Where a combined power and heating plant consists of a number of units (furnaces), on interpretation of Directive 2000/76/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council on the incineration of waste, is each unit to be assessed as a separate plant or is the assessment to cover the combined power and heating plant as a whole?

1

| 2. | On interpretation of the Directive, is a plant constructed for waste incineration but having as its main purpose the production of energy to be classified as an incineration plant or as a co-incineration plant? |
| --- | --- |

2.

On interpretation of the Directive, is a plant constructed for waste incineration but having as its main purpose the production of energy to be classified as an incineration plant or as a co-incineration plant?

---

(1)  OJ L 332, p. 91.

1

---
# C_2007247EN.01002401.xml

| 20.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 247/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 247/24

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 12 September 2007 — Koninklijke Friesland Foods v Commission

(Case T-348/03) (1)

1

(State aid - Tax scheme of aid implemented by the Netherlands - International financing activities of groups of companies - Decision declaring the aid scheme to be incompatible with the common market - Transitional provision - Protection of legitimate expectations - Principle of equal treatment - Admissibility - Legal interest in bringing proceedings)

(2007/C 247/35)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Koninklijke Friesland Foods NV, formerly Friesland Coberco Dairy Foods Holding NV (Meppel, Netherlands) (represented by: E. Pijnacker Hordijk and W. Geursen, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: H. van Vliet, V. Di Bucci and S. Noë, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Action for annulment of Article 2 of Commission Decision 2003/515/EC of 17 February 2003 on the State aid implemented by the Netherlands for international financing activities (OJ 2003 L 180, p. 52) in so far as it excludes from the transitional scheme those operators who, as at 11 July 2001, had lodged a request with the Netherlands tax authority for application of the aid scheme in question but whose request had not yet been determined by that date.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Article 2 of Commission Decision 2003/515/EC of 17 February 2003 on the State aid implemented by the Netherlands for international financing activities in so far as it excludes from the transitional scheme which it lays down those operators who, as at 11 July 2001, had lodged a request with the Netherlands tax authority for application of the aid scheme in question but whose request had not yet been determined by that date; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Article 2 of Commission Decision 2003/515/EC of 17 February 2003 on the State aid implemented by the Netherlands for international financing activities in so far as it excludes from the transitional scheme which it lays down those operators who, as at 11 July 2001, had lodged a request with the Netherlands tax authority for application of the aid scheme in question but whose request had not yet been determined by that date;

| 2. | Orders the Commission to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to pay all the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 21 of 24.1.2004.

1

---
Case No. 6,840.

#### HUGH v. McRAE et al.

[Chase, 466.] 1

Circuit Court, D. South Carolina.

June Term, 1869.

Insolvent Corporation -*- Application fob and Appointment of a Receiver.

1. The fact that a corporation is insolvent, will not authorize it to apply to a court of equity for a receiver to wind up its affairs; and semble that this would also be the case with a private person.

2. A receiver will be appointed in a proper case at the instance of a creditor, but not at that of the insolvent debtor.

[Cited in Jones v. Bank of Leadville, 10 Colo. 464.]

The defendants, procured judgments in the state courts against the State Bank of South Carolina, and were proceeding to enforce them by execution and levy — whereupon the State Bank filed its bill in this court, stating that it was insolvent; that the defendants were about to procure an inequitable preference over its other creditors; by means of the executions which they were enforcing; praying for an injunction to prohibit them from so doing; and asking that Messrs. Sea-bring and Lee be appointed receivers to call in the debts, and assets of the bank, and to pay out from time to time, under the decrec-of this court, the moneys collected, according to the respective claims of all the creditors. The defendants in their answers demurred to the bill for want of equity, and plead to the jurisdiction, besides answering further.

W. G. Dessassure, for complainant.

Brewster, Spratt, Burk and J. Phillips, for defendants.

CHASE, Circuit Justice.

This is substantially a similar case to that of Southwestern R. Bank v. Parsons [Case No. 13,193], decided at the opening of this court, the only distinction being that, in the present case, the bank confesses insolvency, and in the other case there was no such confession. The court is not aware of any case which will warrant its assuming the administration of the estate of a debtor simply upon the ground of insolvency.

If such a case could be found the court will be called upon to administer every estate where the debtor found himself unable to administer it himself conveniently. A creditor in a proper case might come into a court of equity for the appointment of a receiver, but a debtor could not; this, therefore, is not such a case as calls for the interposition of the court, and the prayer of the bill can not be granted. It must be dismissed.

On motion of Mr. Spratt, the following order was entered: On hearing the bill and answers in this case, and the argument of counsel, it is ordered that the bill be dismissed.
Jump to navigation

            - About
            - Browse Collections
            - Advanced Search
            - Contact

## You are here

- Home  › 
- Browse Collections  › 
- U.S. Government Posters

# Flags of American liberty 1732-1932

                - U.S. Government Posters

## Description

                    -           Title        
                    -  Flags of American liberty 1732-1932 
                    -           Publisher        
                    -  C.S. Hammond 
                    -           Subject: Time        
                    -  1930-1940 
                    -           Subject: Place        
                    -  United States 
                    -           Physical Description        
                    -  155 × 76 cm 
                    -           Number of Pages        
                    -  1 
                    -           Host institution        
                    -  University of Iowa. Libraries. Government Publications 
                    -           Digitization Specifications        
                    -  Scanned with Ideal Contex Magnum G600 54 Plus at 300 ppi, 24-bit color. Archival tiff image available. 
                    -           Rights Management        
                    -  This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. 
                    -           Contact Information        
                    -  Please contact the Government Publications Department at The University of Iowa Libraries: lib-govpub@uiowa.edu 
                    -           Item Type (AAT)        
                    -  Posters 
                    -           Item Type (IMT)        
                    -  jpeg 
                    -           Identifier        
                    -  040599906.jpg 
                    -           OCLC Collection Number        
                    -  429489521 

                - Contact the Libraries
                - Library locations & hours
                - News & Events
                - Help using the Libraries
                - Assistance for people with disabilities
                - Our diversity statement
                - Thank a Librarian
                - Web site/page feedback  OR  general suggestions
                -  

                -  
                - 100 Main Library (LIB)
                - 125 West Washington St.
                - Iowa City, IA 52242-1420
                - 319-335-5299 (Service Desk)
                - ©2020  The University of Iowa
                -
# C_2007173EN.01000701.xml

| 26.7.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 173/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.7.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 173/7

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

25 July 2007

(2007/C 173/04)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3743 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 165,55 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,441 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,66905 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2103 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,666 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 82,2 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,951 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5842 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,121 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 246,46 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6966 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,7857 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,1283 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 33,188 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,71 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5536 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4276 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,7522 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7072 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,074 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 256,04 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,385 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,3871 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2904 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 513 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7049 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 61,912 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 35,006 |
| THB | Thai baht | 41,195 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3743

JPY

Japanese yen

165,55

DKK

Danish krone

7,441

GBP

Pound sterling

0,66905

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2103

CHF

Swiss franc

1,666

ISK

Iceland króna

82,2

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,951

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5842

CZK

Czech koruna

28,121

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

246,46

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6966

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,7857

RON

Romanian leu

3,1283

SKK

Slovak koruna

33,188

TRY

Turkish lira

1,71

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5536

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4276

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,7522

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7072

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,074

KRW

South Korean won

1 256,04

ZAR

South African rand

9,385

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,3871

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2904

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 513

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7049

PHP

Philippine peso

61,912

RUB

Russian rouble

35,006

THB

Thai baht

41,195

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
# C_2007244EN.01000101.xml

| 18.10.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 244/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.10.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 244/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

17 October 2007

(2007/C 244/01)

1 euro=

1 euro

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4200 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 166,27 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4539 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,69730 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1456 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,6767 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 85,28 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,6720 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5842 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,440 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 250,44 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7029 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,7021 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,3437 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 33,625 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,7099 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5901 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3870 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,0099 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,8886 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0779 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 304,41 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 9,6592 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,6719 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3225 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 914,90 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,7932 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 62,764 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 35,3640 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,597 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4200

JPY

Japanese yen

166,27

DKK

Danish krone

7,4539

GBP

Pound sterling

0,69730

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1456

CHF

Swiss franc

1,6767

ISK

Iceland króna

85,28

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,6720

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5842

CZK

Czech koruna

27,440

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

250,44

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7029

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,7021

RON

Romanian leu

3,3437

SKK

Slovak koruna

33,625

TRY

Turkish lira

1,7099

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5901

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3870

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,0099

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,8886

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0779

KRW

South Korean won

1 304,41

ZAR

South African rand

9,6592

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,6719

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3225

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 914,90

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,7932

PHP

Philippine peso

62,764

RUB

Russian rouble

35,3640

THB

Thai baht

44,597

---

(1)

1

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

Source:

---
Before the Third Division,

November 3, 1949

No. 53693.

protest 146414-K (New York).

#### Loewengart & Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the issues and facts herein are similar to those involved in *United States*v. *Browne Vintners Co., Inc.*(34 C. C. P. A. 112, C. A. D. 351) and that the quantities reported by the inspector as manifested, not found, were not in fact received by the importer. In accordance with stipulation and following the decision cited it was held that the merchandise, insofar as it involves the quantities reported by the inspector as “manifested, not found,” is subject to an allowance in duties. The protest was sustained to this extent.
| Name                        |   | Jurisdiction of Incorporation |   | Name Under Which theSubsidiaries do Business |
|-----------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Globus Shipmanagement Corp. |   | Marshall Islands                        |   | Globus Shipmanagement Corp.                                           |
| Elysium Maritime Limited    |   | Marshall Islands                        |   | Elysium Maritime Limited                                              |
| Devocean Maritime Ltd.      |   | Marshall Islands                        |   | Devocean Maritime Ltd.                                                |
| Domina Maritime Ltd.        |   | Marshall Islands                        |   | Domina Maritime Ltd.                                                  |
| Dulac Maritime S.A.         |   | Marshall Islands                        |   | Dulac Maritime S.A.                                                   |
| Kelty Marine Ltd.           |   | Marshall Islands                        |   | Kelty Marine Ltd.                                                     |
| Sibelle Marine Inc.         |   | Marshall Islands                        |   | Sibelle Marine Inc.                                                   |
| Supreme Navigation Co.      |   | Marshall Islands                        |   | Supreme Navigation Co.                                                |
| Adagio Marine S.A.          |   | Marshall Islands                        |   | Adagio Marine S.A.                                                    |
| Abrosa Shipping Inc.        |   | Marshall Islands                        |   | Abrosa Shipping Inc.                                                  |
| Rosario Maritime Inc.       |   | Marshall Islands                        |   | Rosario Maritime Inc.                                                 |

----
3.23.11





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission


Washington, DC 20549





Ladies and Gentlemen:





We hereby consent to the incorporation and use in this Registration Statement of Pantheon China Acquisition Corp. III on Form 20-F of our audit report, dated March 16, 2011 relating to the accompanying balance sheet as of December 31, 2010 and the related statements of operations, stockholders’ deficit, and cash flows from inception (March 18, 2010) through December 31, 2010, which appears in such Registration Statement.





We also consent to the reference to our Firm under the title “Interests of Named Experts and Counsel” in the Registration Statement Form 20-F and this Prospectus.








De Joya Griffith & Company, LLC





/s/ De Joya Griffith & Company, LLC


Henderson, NV


3.23.11
# C_2007283EN.01002801.xml

| 24.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 283/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 283/28

---

Order of 14 September 2007 of the Judge hearing the application for interim measures — AWWW v Eurofound

(Case T-211/07 R)

(Public procurement - Community tender procedure - Procedure for interim relief - Lack of urgency)

(2007/C 283/50)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: AWWW GmbH ArbeitsWelt-Working World (Göttingen, Germany) (represented by: B. Schreier, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions (Eurofound) (represented by: C. Callanan, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for suspension of the operation of the decision of Eurofound concerning contract No 2007/S 13-014125 entitled ‘Information and analysis on quality of work and employment, industrial relations and restructuring covering the European level’, until the Court of First Instance has given judgment in the main action.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The application for interim relief is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The application for interim relief is dismissed.

| 2. | The costs are reserved. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The costs are reserved.

---